Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive24

Proposals, April 2006[edit]

{{auto-factory-stub}} or {{auto-plant-stub}}, Category:Automotive factory stubs[edit]

Approximately 72 articles to be sorted here. --Interiot 11:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it be better to start with a simple {{factory-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are very few articles in Category:Manufacturing plants that aren't in autos. I'm not very familiar with stub sorting, but are child stub cats never created before their parents? One example I know about is that {{autoracingbio-stub}} was created first, and had almost 1000 stubs in it when {{automobile-bio-stub}} managed to break 60. --Interiot 10:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are sometimes - though in the case of the motor racing one it was primarily as a split of sports-bio-stub, which was a very big category indeed. I've no objection to the autto-plant one, (though auto-factory-stub would be a better name if we wanted more factory stubs later), it was just an assumption (with no count-up) on my part that if there were lots of car factories there'd be a lot more factories in general. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further singer stubs[edit]

Adding regional singer stub templates has removed around 1,000 stubs from the main Category:Singer stubs (though one or two I'd not have tried to propose myself.) However, there's still around 1,500 left in the category. From having sifted through the lot, I'm very confident I could populate:

I'm not as sure about:

but they could probably just about squeeze over the threshold from just Category:Singer stubs without going into nation-bio stub categories. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going with your confidence levels here: can I suggest template+category for the first three, and template only for the time being for the next four, to facilitate sorting, counting, and a probable later category split? I should bind a function key macro to this suggestion. :) Alai 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Assam-geo-stub}} and {{Punjab-geo-stub}}[edit]

The other day I began reviewing and sorting the unwieldly Indian geography stub category. These two appear to be the most common type of articles that do not fall into any specific geographic category, and creating them would help prune the list considerably. Danny 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Punjab is separated between India and Pakistan, I think {{Punjab-geo-stub}} would be a unfortunate name, maybe {{PunjabIndia-geo-stub}}? Eivind ^t ^@^c 13:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps {{IndianPunjab-geo-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 09:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cameroon-stub}} and {{Somalia-stub}}[edit]

The first sixty stubs I found of each are listed at User:Carabinieri/Africa. I think we should include Somaliland in the Somalia-stub, since Somaliland isn't recognized but Somaliland-stub could be a future split.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good - see also the new geo-stub proposals further up the page. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bangladesh-bio-stub}}[edit]

There are over 20 bio-stubs just in the A's of the bangladesh-stubs, so this one is definately viable.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 09:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{buddhism-bio-stub}}[edit]

There are currently 400+ stubs in Category:Buddhism stubs, many of which are about people. - Nat Krause^(Talk!)

etc.

Tepid support; the parent isn't at all oversized, and I'm worried we'll see the usual rash of "this guy's a Buddhist!" tagging, but this does appear to meet the usual criteria. Alai 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{professional-org-stub}} and {{activist-org-stubs}}[edit]

Category:Organization stubs is in real need of more sub-categories. So here are two new proposed sub categories. I'm open to other name suggestions for these categories they are just the best names I could come up with to describe these broad groups.

{{professional-org-stub}} would correspond with Category:Professional associations.

{{activist-org-stubs}} could be a sub category of both Category:Activism stubs and Category:Organization stubs. The stubs below are are the obvious prospective stubs from among the Activism stubs, but Category:Organization stubs has many as well. mennonot 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{professional-org-stub}}

{{activist-org-stubs}}

{{arthropod-stub}}[edit]

There is already a stub for insects ({{insect-stub}}), one for arachnids ({{arachnid-stub}}) and one for crustaceans ({{crustacean-stub}}) but there is nothing for other Arthropods (centipedes, merostomata, pycnogonids, etc.). I have started up a WikiProject Arthropods, and I suggest the creation of a template for all arthropod organisms that don't have one yet. It would be much more precise than the {{invertebrate-stub}} that is used right now, and would allow participants of the WikiProject Arthropods to expand these stubs more easily. IronChris 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cyprus-geo-stub}}[edit]

I think we need a cyprus-geo-stub because cyprus-stub is too big. I want to know your opinion. If it is not necessary, write tell me why there is a template in cyprus-stub for asking for new stubs about cyprus. User:KRBN

My opinion:

Cyprus-stub's category is still small - well below the level we'd normally start splitting a category up.
There are less than 50 Cyprus geography stubs - country-specific geo-stubs are created once a country reaches 65 stubs.
There is NOT a template in Category:Cyprus stubs asking for new stubs about Cyprus. The only template that is there is one saying that if you want to make one, you should propose it here first. As it is, we don't need and certainly did not ask for any new stub types relating to Cyprus.
This is all academic, since you have already made the template - it's listed at WP:WSS/D, as you know. Proposing it now is far too late.

Grutness...wha? 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say upmerge, "pour encourager les autres". It's way premature as regards as sort of "necessity", and somewhat so as regards technical viability, and we'd have told KRBN so if he'd actually proposed it (and waited for a reply). One thing I'd strongly suggest is that we create any "missing" by-country -geo-stub templates, "pre-merged" into the corresponding <country>-stub; any entirely missing countries I'd further suggest we do something similar on a regional basis. This may prevent the occasional annoying redlink while sorting, and it may even lead to fewer of these creations-out-of-completism. (You never know.) Alai 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- hm. Sounds good in principle, and might help with some of the categories where there are only a couple of countries left (Central America and South America, for instance), but I'd be a bit wary of doing it for all countries. The idea of 30 templates leading into Category:Oceania geography stubs is a bit daunting, for instance. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{canal-stub}}[edit]

Most of the articles listed on Canals of the United Kingdom. Currently they are tag with a horible mixture of loction stubs and geo stubs (and a few water transport stubs) which are not particularly helpful when it comes to attracting interested editors.Geni 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose in its current form. They currently should all be marked with various national or subnational geo-stubs (which are location stubs!) - UK ones, US ones, Netherlands ones, Italy ones, France ones... none should be marked with water-stub. Canals are split entirely by location. I'd weakly support a UK-canal-stub and US-canal-stub, but not a general canal-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit more borderline than the likes of "mountain-stub", at least. It also seems perfectly understandable that some of them have ended up under water transport, since they'd certainly be in that as a permanent category, and it's not instantly obviously that this is less primarily notable than their geographical location. Not sure I agree with the logic of opposing this, and supporting country-specific ones: it's not immediately clear that those are numerically viable, and if they are, it'll leave some out in the cold, and the country-specifics parentless (or with rather "remoter" parents, in practice). Tentative support for this, subject to numbers, and backlash about the inevitable (n+1)-stubbing, where n is doubtless already in many cases large. Alai 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll alter my initial comments - I'll support canal-stub on the proviso that all canals are double-stubbed with the relevant geo-stub as well. Grutness...wha? 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relivant geo-stub (singular) for say the Grand Western Canal?Or the Ketley Canal which isn't really a location any more (it isn't quite as x as the Croydon Canal but it isn't far off).Geni 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Western - two stubs, devon-geo-stub and somerset-geo-stub. Ketley, shropshire-geo-stub. Croydon, london-geo-stub. easy. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Like I said, (n+1)-stubbing, where n is... whatever it might happen to be. Ketley Canal still has a location, regardless of whether there's much there, there. Personally I don't think this is likely to be unmanageable, but admittedly "we've had complaints" in similar cases. Alai 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-footy-stub}} or {{US-soccer-stub}}[edit]

No ideas whatsoever about the likely population; consider this a follow-on from ideas floated at a (still unclosed, btw) SFD. Alai 17:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-planning-stub}}[edit]

Hi there, I propose a new stub category to cover the planning system of the United Kingdom as written up in Category:United Kingdom planning law There's 90 something articles 70 of which are stubs. --Mcginnly 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be supportive of this, though by the sounds if it, it and {{UK-planning-law-stub}} would be mutually exclusive on grounds of size for the time being, right? Alai 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats right Alai - this one's going to be a broader church encompassing law and non-law UK planning issues, theory etc. --Mcginnly 11:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{film-org-stub}} and Category:Film organization stubs[edit]

To be tucked under both Category:Film archives and Category:Film organizations. Together there are enough film stubs that fall under either "film archives" or "film orgs" to exceed 100. Her Pegship 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, and started population. Her Pegship 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bangladesh-cricketbio-stub}} and {{Zimbabwe-cricketbio-stub}}[edit]

{{cricketbio-stub}} was split by nationality in February (discussion). But at that time, only eight of the ten Test-playing nations were given their own stubs/categories, because the proposer felt that the other two didn't have enough articles to merit it.

I would now like to propose that the remaining two countries, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, be split off too. Using Cat Scan (look for Category:Cricket biography stubs intersected with either Category:Bangladeshi cricketers or Category:Zimbabwean cricketers), I have determined that both would have over 70 articles. I think this should be plenty, especially as the categories "belong" to a WikiProject (WP:Cricket).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that 70 is plenty, so support these (though I don't see the WPJ argument as relevant here, as it's not specific to either class of stubs). Alai 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - these two weren't big enough when I proposed the initial split, but definitely are now. It might also be worth looking at the number of UAE and Kenyan cricketers, since there were more from those two countries than I expected when I went through the categories at the last split. I agree with Alai about the WikiProject, too: although the threshold can probably be bent a bit for an "umbrella" WikiProject like yours, it would really need a specific Bangladeshi (or Zimbabwean) cricket project for it to be directly relevant. Grutness...wha? 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Sorry, I misunderstood the WikiProject criterion. I don't think Kenya is ready yet (and I'm pretty sure that it is the 11th biggest country). We have 31 Kenyan cricketers, and that represents every Kenyan one-day international cricketer, so I don't think it will increase fast either. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - not that it will get it close to 60, but remember this is for any cricket biographies, not just the cricketers themselves - umpires, coaches, statisticians, broadcasters, administrators... Kenya would still hardly be pushing 40 though, let alone 60. It, UAE, Hong Kong, Scotland and the rest may have to wait in the main category for now. Grutness...wha? 12:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UK-journalist-stub}}[edit]

I haven't done a formal count, but a quick sample suggests that this would pass threshold by some distance, as well as reducing the load in Category:Journalist stubs. Possibly other nationalities would reach threshold as well (who was it who knew how to use that handy-dandy automated count thing? Alai?) Grutness...wha? 03:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest {{Euro-journalist-stub}}, {{SouthAm-journalist-stub}}, {{Oceania-journalist-stub}} and {{Asia-journalist-stub}} as well. Haven't done a proper count, but the Category is quite large. --Eivind ^t ^@^c 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to get as much as possible from the national subcategories first. (Support UK-journalist, this one is long overdue.) Conscious 07:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of it, counted it, and already proposed it! Just haven't been creating the UK ones, as I've been working on the US ones, as time permits. Count there, which IIRC is based on double-stubbing, is very conservative, CatScan finds 142 (usual CatScan caveats apply in both directions). Alai 14:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{compu-interface-stub}}[edit]

A place for the processes of a computer: what it does or offers or how it communicates with a human. Examples include: boot-up period, autofill and autotype, clickable image, and data acquisition (and that's just skimming the beginning of the bloated Category:Computer stubs). A rename may be in order, but this category is for all the gritty things of how a computer appears to work to the average user, without delving into code or anything.--Here T oHelp 13:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal has a familiar look. To recapitulate: if there are 60 stubs that would sensibly scoped within the permanent category Category:Human-computer interaction, then fair enough. However, from the examples above, two of which are most definitely not HCI topics, this looks in danger of being "compu-misc-stub", which I'd strongly oppose. Alai 19:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of {{Scotland-geo-stub}} / Category:Scotland geography stubs[edit]

I would like to propose that we split the very large (1010 articles) Scotland geo stub by the council areas of Scotland, which are used for local government. Three of the sub cats already exist:

A fourth one, which does not fit in with this proposed split, is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

There are 32 council areas, each with a very good, comprehensive set of Wikipedia categories to which these new stubs naturally belong: see Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland. Stub sorting will be dead easy (he says!) because some colleagues of mine over at the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board have been very busy categorising all those 1000 stubs to the relevant council area already, so even if the stub is missing the relevant council area info at the top (and they shouldn't be), it will be (he says!) at the foot of the article.

So, here are the 29 new stubs I propose:

I won't pretend that I have done a count, but 1010 divided by 29 only equals 35 stubs, so some of them are bound to be too small or borderline (the only obvious one I can see is Inverclyde). I don't know how you want to deal with that, but I suggest that if we have serious concerns about some being too small then we just leave them out at the moment, ie. lumped in to the main cat. Personally I would prefer that we just do this in a oner, but I know that some of us hate undersized stubs.

On the other hand, I would suggest that some are really needed, eg Aberdeenshire, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Edinburgh and Highland.

I am going to go and do some snouting about, so that 1010 figure may grow somewhat!--Mais oui! 04:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per my usual MO, I'm going to support all the templates, and the corresponding catgories as they pass 60. As per my comments on SFD, we can consider lumping into supra-UA categories once it's clear what those numbers look like. Alai 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support any that get beyond the 60-65 area. The Highland one certainly will. I suppose combining the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire ones is a bit too much of a stretch? Orkney and Shetland possibly could be combined as NorthernIsles-geo-stub, though. FWIW, if it's any help, you could probably rummage through the history of User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying - somewhere back there among the deletions will be a count of the Scotland geo-stubs from a few months ago, sorted by Lieutenancy. They should at least give a rough idea of how many stubs there might be by UA. ISTR Dumfries & Galloway is anothr that should easily reach target, BTW. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I hadn't thought of that. It sounds like a very elegant solution, and I support it. Re. your comments over at Deletions: I remember reading last week that under the next Boundary Commission the revised Scottish Parliament electoral regions are going to be made to correspond with the council area boundaries. I assume that that means that they do not do that at the moment, so what initially looked a very attractive method looks less so. Other "big" conglomerations are the Sheriffdoms, the Health Boards, Fire and Police (see Subdivisions of Scotland), but I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't be of much use (Police areas may be the most obvious and least complicated, I think, but apparently the government are itching to abolish several of them). Nope, as you say, let's create all the templates, and then see how logical we can make the categorisation. It will probably all be very obvious once we see the actual numbers. --Mais oui! 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had assumed they corresponded too: that's a fly in the ointment. But only small one, I think, since as Grutness says, accuracy may be a bit flakey anyway, due to people not knowing or caring what current boundary such-and-such a place lies within or outwith, and doesn't ultimately detract for the basic utility of sorting on a "near enough" basis: stub sorting is a transient and frangible business anyway. (Stop me if I start sounding too Karmafist-style WikiBuddhist here.) If we end up with a "Lothian" or a "Lanarkshire" or a "Highlands and Islands" that don't correspond to the actual ones, but to the conglomerated UAs, then first of all, the per-UA templates will still be accurate, and secondly, the category page can be glossed to cover this. ("The UAs of South Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire", etc.) If Mais is correct about the largest four or five, that'll deal with the immediate oversizedness, at least. Grutness, almost all of the larger subdivision scheme combine Aberdeen and -shire -- the problem is there's so many of 'em! Grampian electoral board and police force, and health board (along with Moray); and the North East Scotland parliamentary region along with what-one-might-be-inclined-to-call-Tayside. (This one is rather badly out of whack with the UAs at present, which is unfortunate.) As Oui says, the actual numbers and a wee bit of ruthless expediency will probably make this much clearer. Alai 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Marine-geo-stub}}(or similar)[edit]

Category:Oceanography stubs currently contains about 180 stubs - not enough to need splitting - but many of the stubs in it (about 60) actually relate to the geography of the sea - seas themselves, trenches, straits, etc. I think these ight be better served by a separate stub for marine geography. If you were to add the stubs relating to ocean currents to this new category, it would almost exactly halve the category, taking in about 85 of the stubs. The article on oceanography suggests that these items are covered by the sience of Physical oceanography, but I'm not sure that {{phys-ocean-stub}} would be the best name, hence my suggestion of a geo-stub nomenclature. It might also be worth changing ocean-stub to oceanography-stub at the same time. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Scotland-castle-stub}} / Category:Scottish castle stubs[edit]

This would be a subcat of Category:Scotland buildings and structures stubs. There are about 50-60 castle articles in that stub category already. There are more that are not stub tagged at present, such as Broughty Castle, Seafield Tower, Castle of Mey. Also, WikiProject Scottish Castles is now underway, and this stub cat would be a good way of organising progress. ::Supergolden:: 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not brilliantly happy with this, but it's only a very weak oppose. We've started to split England by region rather than structure type, so it would make sense to do the same with Scotland - but there are country-specific stadium stubs, so castles wouldn't be too strange a split. The WikiProject is a point in its favour too, but there are only 230 Scotland-struct-stubs in total, which is a fairly low total to need a split. I'm willing to be swayed, but is it too difficult to sort through the current category? Grutness...wha? 12:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I agree with G's concerns, but the WPJ tips this over into viability for me. As we haven't even gotten it together to split the Scottish location stubs by region, I'm not holding my breath for that happening with the structures. Alai 14:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we had not embarked on the truly bizarre method of starting to try to subdivide Scotland geo stubs by using the incomprehensibly obscure "lieutenancy areas" (what!?!), then we would be a lot further ahead than we are now. There is only one sane way to split the Scotland geo stubs, and that is by council areas. (This is veering off the subject, but that Inverness-shire geo stub is a total mess: misnamed - the lieutenancy is called "Inverness" not "Inverness-shire" - hopelessly confusing - "Inverness" may mean several things: a city, a committee area, a former district, a sheriffdom, a former county, a registration county, a lieutenancy area... all with totally different boundaries - underpopulated - only 13 articles therein - incorrect map at the main Scotland-geo-stub page - Skye and Raasay are not in the Inverness lieutenancy area - I could go on... .) I don't know what to think of this castles stub: I am inclined to Weak support it, with the proviso that we are sooner or later going to have to double-stub these types of articles with a struct stub by Scottish council areas. --Mais oui! 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that my comment has been taken as personal criticism. It is not: we all bear collective responsibility for the few, occasional errors which this Wikiproject takes. I definitely include myself in the criticism above, because I was part of the initial discussion. --Mais oui! 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I'm concerned, rest easy. I agree that the whole attempted scotland-split was a mess, but mainly because the articles themselves are marked with a mish-mash or lieutenancies, traditional counties, and the modern equivalents. As for Inverness-shire, I thought we'd deleted that category months back. if not, it needs to go to sfd, as it is indeed very misleading. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give strong support to this proposal. There are alledged to be over 3000 Scottish Castles. WikiProject Scottish Castles is being run to create a complete article for every one of these, therefore I feel a stub category is not an unreasonable request. It will provide a means of creating uniformity of short articles and is an excellent tool (when well used) for organising the Wikipedia. Slink pink 07:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt there's 3000 notable Scottish castles; and there certainly aren't 3000 stub articles for them, which is what's material for stub creation. (Well, not there being 3000, but the numbers of actual articles, that is.) Alai 08:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, with the help of the WPJ, these stubs wont be around when scotland-struct-stub gets split (he says hopefully!). I created the cat at Category:Scotland castle stubs, more in line with Category:Scotland buildings and structures stubs ::Supergolden:: 08:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what it was proposed as, though, and had it been, I'd have strongly objected to it as a category name as highly awkward (as is the existing type). Anyone object to changing it back? Alai 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{British Columbia-stub}} / Category:British Columbia biography stubs[edit]

Two Canadian provinces already have their own stubs – Quebec and Ontario. There are a large number of articles that are stubs that would fit best into a “British Columbia-stub” (but not into the BritishColumbia-geo-stub). I suspect a good number of vancouver-stub articles more properly belong under a “British Columbia-stub”. For example, Walter Stewart Owen more properly belongs under a “British Columbia” stub than a Vancouver stub, because the reasons for his notoriety are not limited to his years in Vancouver. Other articles suitable for a BC stub include (in no degree of importance or order) Provincial Court of British Columbia and Supreme Court of British Columbia, Bait Car Program, B.C. Pavilion, Pacific Scandal, British Columbia legislature police raids scandal, Bingogate, Medical Services Plan and Alberni Valley Heritage Network. Fluit 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A {{BritishColumbia-stub}} (as per naming guidelines there's no space) might be useful, especially since there is a Vancouver project with its own stubs - this would be a natural parent of it. Also you didn't mention NovaScotia-stub. BUT it wouldn't be for biographies. Biographies shouldn't be split by province - they're always split by nationality and profession, and if there are bio-stubs in the Ontario-stub, Quebec-stub, NovaScotia-stub and Vancouver-stub ccategories they should be removed from them. A BritishColumbia-stub for the other things you mention might well be useful though. Do you think you can scrounge together 60 stubs? Grutness...wha? 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the bio-stubs. Of course, this opens up a discussion about stubs for all 10 provinces (and territories). That's the way Canada works - if one kid, er, province gets it, they all have to get it! As for suitable articles, I'm sure there are plenty - it took me mere moments to find the examples above. Fluit 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub for Swiss Rail[edit]

We should create a Swiss railway stub such as follows: {{swiss railway-stub}} (unsigned comment by User:Booksworm.)

To keep the name consistent with the other similar stubs it would be {{Switzerland-rail-stub}}... Are there 60 (or close to 60) articles that can use this? Grutness...wha? 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(yeah, coming in a little late to this conversation, but...) Switzerland is still well under the threshhold. As of my last count (see User:Slambo/Rail stub sorting), there are 14 stub articles that would fit into this proposed subtype; my Germany count is at 23 and Mexico at 24 for comparison. I need to take another look through the Euro rail stub category again, but as the main rail stubs category has yet to have such a preponderance for Switzerland, I don't anticipate a great difference. Slambo (Speak) 13:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Auto-bio-stub}} / Category:Auto biography stubs[edit]

There are several bios currently in Category:Automobile stubs (about 15), there are many stubs in Category:Automobile designers, some in Category:Automotive pioneers, and maybe a few from Automotive Hall of Fame. I haven't counted the unique ones up, but there should be at least 30, and this would be attached to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. --Interiot 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little light. While there's a degree of dispensation for Wikiprojects, I'm not sure how open-ended it should be as regards multiple stub-types per project. (Notorious examples spring to mind.) I'd support creating a template, only, merged to Category:Automobile stubs, to facilitate sorting these, though, and future splitting to a separate stub category when it hits a more-normally-splittable number. Alai 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, I went through and counted the unique ones listed above, and I count 72 articles currently. That should be enough for the template at least, if not a category. --Interiot 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me, support template and category. Alai 23:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES! after doing hours of research on A.E. Barit (trying to find the out what "A" and "E" stood for) of Hudson and James J. Nance of Packard (which which was like hunting the Holy Grail) I support this and see value in it. Stude62 23:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not with this name! we dont want people putting autobiographies in here! would support {{automobile-bio-stub}} or {{car-bio-stub}} and Category:automotive people stubs or similar tho. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahahahaha, you're right. Thanks for pointing out the potentional alternative meaning. I support {{automobile-bio-stub}} ("auto" is preferable, since it can include heavy trucks and other things, if needed). And Category:automotive people stubs sounds fine. I was planning on sticking it under the newly-created Category:Automotive related biography, for what it's worth. --Interiot 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose {{motor-bio-stub}} is too UK-centric? Grutness...wha? 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female American Writers {{US-female-writer-stub}}[edit]

Since there are so many articles under the category American Writers I suggest that sub-categories relating to gender or place of birth should be created. Anonymous anonymous 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any other categories which are split by sex, and I'd be very reluctant to start doing so, considering that sex is usually not the most relevant aspect of any individual. Place of birth makes more sense, but could be complicated to determine. Just throwing ideas out, what about genre? Seems like it could lead to double stubs but might be one way to go.Aelfthrytha 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No bleedin' way. I strongly suggest we start with a split by medium, which is already underway under {{writer-stub}}, to a limited extent, alongside the by-nationality split. Novelists, playwrights, screenwriters, writers for TV, poets... Note that the journalists are already split out, though I'm unclear where newspaper columnists are currently sorted. And bloggers/online commentators? Alai 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per Alai. We shouldn't sort according to race, nor to sex. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with alai. weve been splitting by nationality and field of writing - spliting by sex isnt a good idea. ISTR the parent main cats dont split by sex either. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; suggest sub-cat by field per all of the above. Newspaper columnists IRL are usually lumped in with journalists, and online writers could be "web authors" or some such. Her Pegship 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Australia-mil-stub}} or {{ADF-stub}}[edit]

Looking through the military and Australia stubs there are well over 60 articles that this can apply to. Either would be appropriate. ADF stands for Australian Defence Force.--Looper5920 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support under the former title, as less cryptic, and more inclusively scoped. Alai 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first suggestion. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first suggestion. Eivind ^t ^@^c 22:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support the first name. Have a look at ADF to find out why the second ones not a good idea. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support first wording. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first suggestion, is much more open. Hossens27 09:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first wording as it is much more inclusive and useful. The ADF has only been in existance since the 1970s. --Nick Dowling 10:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize but I created the stub article early and rolled with it. I apologize to those mad that I did not wait a week.--Looper5920 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the level of support I don't think anyone will be too mad at you! (Mind you, if you'd made it with the other name we would have been!) Grutness...wha? 13:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ireland-band-stub}} / Category:Irish musical group stubs[edit]

Another nationality split of {{band-stub}} – currently there are 61 Irish band stubs. --Bruce1ee 10:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No problems here. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Erin go bragh. Her Pegship 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the template and category and listed it. --Bruce1ee 13:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{CAsia-hist-stub}} {{SEAsia-hist-stub}}[edit]

Each of these stubs has approximately 70 articles which could be marked with their stub, plus many others which currently have no stub tag (and which I will dig up later). Aelfthrytha 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support. It's probably worth checking whether any of the SAsia ones are simply Indian ons which haven't yet been sorted (India-hist-stub is still pretty new). Grutness...wha? 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read, SAsia-hist and SEAsia-hist are distinctly different entities. SAsia-hist, which was approved a while ago and created by me recently, covers Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and subjects which transcend the boundaries of India. SEAsia-hist would cover Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and the Phillippines. Aelfthrytha 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Support. Yup - I missed the E. And you missed Timor Leste :) Grutness...wha? 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I forgot to include Sri Lanka and the Maldives in my listing for SAsia-hist, and I didn't see you throwing any stones there... :P Aelfthrytha 17:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touché :) Grutness...wha? 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom[edit]

I have noticed that many articles related to the computer game Doom are stubs. Will somebody make {{Doom-stub}} and put it on articles in Category:Doom. Category:Doom already has subcategories.

This article about the computer game Doom is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

--75.9.240.125 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to right place. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. there are only 78 articles in Category:Doom in total so youre not likely to get close to 60 stubs from that. but i also see that one of its subcats is "doom stubs". so why was it made before being proposed? if it doesnt fill up soon it should be taken to sfd since its covered by other stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-entertainer-stub}} / Category:United States entertainer stubs[edit]

32 of these directly double-stubbed with both parents, probably quite a few more tucked away elsewhere. I'll scrouge through some other categories later. Will also hold several existing subcats, as with the entertainer hierarchy. Alai 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{NativeAmerican-stub}} / Category:Native American biography stubs[edit]

Or if you really want to stick with the pattern, {{NativeAmerica-bio-stub}}, which sounds pretty odd, or yet again, {{NorthAm-native-bio-stub}}, which sounds pretty long. According to CatScan, there's 119 under both US-bio- and Category:Native American. Some of these are probably basically ethnicity descriptors of modern-day people, but often it's their main notabily, as with the pioneers/settlers, below. There's also the issue of whether to scope this to include Canadian First Nation bios, or just those of the US. Alai 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unsure of this one - usually we group all issues relating to ethnic groups in a region with just XX-ethno-stub, though I unserstand how that could be a problem with the immigrant melting pot of North America. I wonder if it might be better to consider these people by field of endeavour rather than by ethnicity, or - if their field of endeavour is ethnicity-related politics or similar create a stub type on that basis (eg ethno-politician-stub, ethno-activist-stub, or similar). Otherwise we may be reopening the can of worms we just closed re: Kurd-politician-stub, etc. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, in the modern-day cases I'd have similar concerns. But for colonial and "Wild West" era types in Category:Native American leaders and {{Native American religious figures}} that's pretty much their notability (and "nationality", come to that), and sorting them under poli-bio-stub and reli-bio-stub isn't very useful. Alternatively, we could have a number of -hist-bio- types, split up by whatever combination of locations and time period makes the most sense. (US-West-hist-bio-stub?) Alai 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the existing {{NorthAm-native-stub}}, which has a similar scope... Mairi 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Botswana-stub}}[edit]

There are 68 stubs listed here; you could probably find more in an extensive search.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good number of stubs. No problems here. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as long as you remember to keep any Botswana geo-stubs double-stubbed AfricaS-geo-stub :) Grutness...wha? 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I thought any geo-stubs would be taken care of by you fairly soon (Botswana has 52 geo-stubs accordign to your list) I didn't include them on my list.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ethiopia-bio-stub}}[edit]

It appears to me that there's enough articles that would fall into this category to justify its creation; my rough count comes up with a minimum of 30, most of which are either Emperors or nobility. (Sorry about that; I've been making an honest effort to expand old stubs & avoid creating new ones.) -- llywrch 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. The usual minimum number for a new category is around 60 stubs, and the parent category {{Ethiopia-stub}} has only 60 articles. We should wait for that one to grow. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Support. I have populated the category so it is now up to 144 stubs. Almost all of the new additions are persons, so it is clearly above threshold. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, enough content. — mark ✎ 08:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-music-bio-stub}} / Category:United States music biography stubs[edit]

Don't have a count for this (I know, I'm slipping), for the time being, but there's at least the odd one in US-bio-stub, and doubtless many elsewhere. Would also act as a parent for existing "bottom-up" types. Alai 07:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already there! Conscious 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed a key qualifier! Alai 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American pioneers/historical biographies?[edit]

I've noticed a number of stubs in US-bio- that are best described as "generic pioneers": they may have done a spot of politicking, a bit of town-founding, a smidgen of business, a little bit of shooting up of the natives, etc, without being clear-cut US-pol-, US-business-, or US-mil- types. I don't have a count (uncharacteristically, I know), but I thought I'd float the idea of something like a {{US-pioneer-stub}}, or else a generic {{US-hist-bio-stub}}. Anyone have any thoughts, or more precise data? Alai 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it in line with the recent Australian stub type, I'd suggest US-settler-stub. Ir is that not a term used for the early US? Grutness...wha? 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Alai 06:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{costa-rica-geo-stub}}[edit]

Created a dozen new stubs in this area today that add to the numerous existing ones that are all going into CAmerica-geo-stub for now, but it would be useful to split this off as from experience so far the list is going to get a lot bigger before it starts to come under control, as very large chunks of the countries geography seems missing (half the volcanos, two thirds of the national parks, all but one of the rivers, etc. etc.) Sfnhltb 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things here. 1) A dozen new stubs would still only take costa rica to 50, according to the latest tally, which isn't yet enough. We automnatically propose andsplit off any country which reaches the 65 stub mark, and the tally is done every two weeks. So if Costa Rica reaches 65 stubs by mid April, then it will be proposed and dealt with then (Cuba is the only coutry which reached that mark at the last tally on March 28-29). 2) Even if it was split off, it would be CostaRica-geo-stub, not costa-rica-geo-stub. In other words, not now, but if it's growing as fast as you predict, it would make sense to split it fairly soon. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm convinced. You said a dozen new stubs, not 79! But it should definitely be {{CostaRica-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{extreme-sports-stub}}[edit]

As far as I have searched I have found no existing stub templates for extreme sports, be it stubs on the sports themselves or biographical articles for practicioners. I really think we need one. --Ifrit 03:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an count of stubs that would go under the category? Aelfthrytha 03:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very hard to give a count of that, thing is that there exist stub categories for extreme sports, but no extreme sports stub. So, essentially, a stub with a skateboarding topic gets {{Skateboarding-stub}}, while, for example a stub on Freestyle Motocross has to settle for a mere {{sport-stub}}. --Ifrit 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Algeria-stub}}[edit]

There are at least 82 stubs, which would fit into this stub category, which are listed here.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organic compound stubs[edit]

This cat has reached five pages. I have no clue along what lines we should split it. Is there a chemist in the house? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 20:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a chemist, but I would suggest starting by splitting the hydrocarbons and then checking, if further splits are necessary.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could go by functional groups, like alkenes, alcohols, etc. It's been a while since I took organic chemistry; I'll think over what might work........... A2Kafir 21:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a WikIPorject Chemistry? If so it might be an idea to run this past them, see if they can think of a way of splitting it into, say, four or five similarly sized cats. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or 8 or 10, just so long it isn't the 38 sucategories that Category:organic compounds has. There is a WPJ Chemistry, and a more specific child: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. Alai 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is dead, I think. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]